Alexandre Oliva on Nostr: > Tivoization isn't a problem with the free software I guess that's the point that's ...

> Tivoization isn't a problem with the free software
I guess that's the point that's debatable, and we may differ on that.

free software is software that respects the users' essential freedoms for users to have control over the software. if the software contains a signature meant to prevent users from enjoying those freedoms and that control, in the intended (possibly single) use scenario, would it be reasonable to say that the software is free? I don't think so.

now, it's true that, in order for that freedom-deprivation scheme to work, other nonfree components need to be present in the system. but the problem is not so much that the nonfree components cease to operate (that would indeed be an injustice related with the nonfree components), it's that they prevent modified versions of the previously-free software from operating (which compounds the injustice of the nonfree components with an injustice over software that was supposed to be free)

I don't think the case of SOF is one of digital handcuffs. the SOF programs are not preventing users from doing anything. they would be free software if it weren't for the Tivoizing signatures. and if they implemented digital handcuffs, inasmuchas they're free software, one could escape by modifying the programs. of course, once they're Tivoized, escape is no longer an option in the intended use scenario, but the handcuffs are not in the SOF programs themselves, but in the nonfree components of SOF-targeted devices.

CC: Simon Josefsson (npub1ky9…k2p5)